Template talk:Crossdressing footer

Nomination of “autoandrophilia and autogynophilia” from sexuality portion of cross dressing footer These terms are dated and not in anyway accepted scientific or medical theory by contemporary standards, which is in itself noted in the linked article. Including them here, particularly under “sexuality” heading, gives a false impression that they are still somehow accepted as a majority theory. Just as we would not include out of date theory on other medical or cultural subjects, like “hysteria” under woman’s health, we should not include Blanchard's transsexualism typology (autoandrophilia and autogynophilia) here. Will remove, provided there are no reasonable objections.
 * It's not widely regarded as "disproven".★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I had not suggested it was “disproven” anywhere, please do not misquote. This is not a reasonable objection.
 * Acording to what metric? I find it a perfectly good objection. It belongs there perfectly fine. Saying something is "out dated" would imply that it's not longer considered acurate and is therefore disproven. Bring it up with the LGBT project if you have issues with it instead of trying to edit war to force your POV.★Trekker (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not simply my POV, please stop suggesting I somehow prove a negative. The article on Blanchard's transsexualism typology (autoandrophilia and autogynophilia) itself states that it is not accepted as valid or included in the DSM-V, or by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Thereby the burden of proof, for including this article under the cross dressing sexuality heading, is not fulfilled. That metric alone should exclude it. I’m happy to also bring this to the on the LGBT project, although doing so does not change the fact that there is no reasonable objection which you have made in response to this edit.KillingsBjorn (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DSM-V does not rule everything (the other two articles in that section are also controversial with them for example), if you have issue, please do as I told you and bring it up to the LGBT project and try to get support from them because I don't find your arguments compeling.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the other two articles in that section are listed in either the DSM-5 (Transvestic fetishism, as a paraphilia) or the ICD-10 (Dual-role transvestism, although it is slated for removal in the yet to be published ICD-11). This shows current relevance for both of those articles, although there is no such relevance for autoandrophilia and autogynophilia, for which it should be removed. I have remained NPOV during this interaction, and am happy to bring further support of others to the matter.KillingsBjorn (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I said "controversial". Now who's misquoting?★Trekker (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t quote you, I responded to your statement that the articles are also “controversial with them”. One being included in the current DSM would suggest that it isn’t “controversial”. Who were you suggesting “them” is, other than the DSM? I am also seeking support from the sexualityProject, due to this not being a recognized paraphilia within the DSM or AASECT.KillingsBjorn (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's there as a related article, not as any sort of commentary or endorsement. The term "autogynephilia" is in fact in the DSM-5. Check Google Books. There is academic dispute around it, yes, but it is a related topic. Crossroads -talk- 04:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)